As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document
Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time.
This version (draft-ietf-i2nsf-capability-data-model-21) is dated Nov 13, 2021.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet
Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper
type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This
document defines a YANG model for specifying the capability of Network Security
Function (NSF), and thus a standard track document is appropriate. The
standards track is noted in the header of the document.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up.
Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be
found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:
Technical Summary:
This document defines an information model and the corresponding YANG data
model for the capabilities of NSFs in the Interface to Network Security
Functions (I2NSF) framework to manage the capabilities of the various NSFs
centrally.
Working Group Summary:
This document was one of the milestones for the I2NSF WG. The document went
through long period discussions within the I2NSF WG and with NETMOD WG
participants. Many changes were made to utilize the modules that are already
specified by draft-ietf-netmod-acl-model as much as possible. The document then
went through the YANG Doctor review process. Got good comments and feedback
from YANG Doctor Review. The authors addressed feedbacks promptly until the
YANG Doctor are satisfied with the YANG models and entered READY for the
document.
Document Quality:
This document is well-written and has gone through a number of working group
and external reviews. The YANG module itself validates without any warnings,
and have passed YANG Doctor Review. There have been IETF Hackathon
implementation and Open-source implementation
(https://github.com/jaehoonpaul/i2nsf-framework) for the YANG model specified
by this document. In addition, multiple vendors on the co-author list all
indicated that they plan to implement.
Personnel:
Who is the Document Shepherd? Who is the Responsible Area Director?
Document Shepherd is Linda Dunbar
The Responsible Area Director is Roman Danyliw
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the
Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for
publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. I
have read many versions of this document. I feel this document is ready for
publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of
the reviews that have been performed? No, I do not.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader
perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or
internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. I don’t think
so.
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has
with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be
aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of
the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No specific
concerns for this document.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures
required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have
already been filed. If not, explain why? Yes. All authors replied. These
responses can be found in the archives of the I2nsf list.
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so,
summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. 2 IPR
disclosures were filed against this document. There were some concerns of the
IPR terms. After some discussion, the authors had their respective companies
change the IPR terms to satisfy WG participants’ requests.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the
strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the
WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Consensus was strong with no
vocalized dissension.
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent?
If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.) Not to my knowledge.
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document.
(See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist).
Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough.
No ID nits found during Shepherd review.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such
as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. The document
has gone through YANG Doctor review. Has revised to address comments received
from YANG Doctor review. YANG Doctor thinks this document ready for publication.
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as either
normative or informative? Yes.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for
advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references
exist, what is the plan for their completion? No. All normative references are
published RFCs.
(15) Are there downward normative references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these
downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure.
Yes, the YANG model described in the document has reference to RFC8805 which is
an Informational RFC.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs?
Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and
discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and
Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the
relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it
unnecessary. No, it will not.
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations
section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the
document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that
any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly
created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial
contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations
are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
RFC 8126). This document does not define any new IANA registries, but it does
request the following URI in the "IETF XML Registry" [RFC3688]: Uri:
urn:ietf:params:xml:ns:yang:ietf-i2nsf-capability This document requests IANA
to register the following YANG module in the "YANG Module Names" registry
[RFC7950]: name: ietf-i2nsf-capability All the referenced IANA registries have
been clearly identified by the document.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future
allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in
selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. None.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd
to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, YANG modules, etc. This document has passed
the automated YANG check, which includes a number of validators.
(20) If the document contains a YANG module, has the module been checked with
any of the recommended validation tools
(https://trac.ietf.org/trac/ops/wiki/yang-review-tools) for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module comply
with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified in
RFC8342? The YANG module specified by the document has passed the validation
and pass the YANG Doctor review.